Hello Biology-Online,I am a new member here and I am looking forward to sharing my knowledge with all of you. Here is some background information on me:I am working towards my undergraduate degree in biology at a college ranked in the top 30. I enjoy every aspect of biology but sometimes I feel it is too simple.

I feel at my college that I am surrounded by a bunch of dimwits. In my general biology class, my fellow pupils were discussing cancer and how we're coming closer to a cure. I thought for a moment and decided to give my two cents. I told them that cancer is purely a myth. How can cells grow uncontrollably? That would mean they would be large enough to see and I have never seen a single cell without looking through a microscope. I then went on to tell them instead of throwing loads of money in order to find a cure, we should just remove the part of the body that is infected. A simple solution to a simple problem.

And how do you think, that is nowadays cured cancer? Basically by surgery. The problem is, that it is complicated, invasive, sometimes it's not accesible and even worst, it can spread throughout the body, so unless you don't want to cut off the whole body you need to use other cure...

The problem is not uncontrolled grow of single cells, that would kill the cells by itself, but they divide uncontrolled and that's the problem, because normal cells have mechanism either for stopping the cell cycle or to divide only for defined number of times...

Surgery is a very primitive way to treat cancer, since cancer cells have the ability to bud off and travel in the blood stream. Cells become cancerous when they loose the genes necessary to stop cell cycle, these genes are usually mutated or deleted. We will probably never find a cure for cancer, but what we can do eventually is slow down its aggressive nature, without the use of harmful chemical treatments. But what about cancer do you find so mythical exactly?

Cancer cells do stay the same size, and yes the go through mitosis as do normal cells, only they do not upkeep the structural identity of their normal counterparts in the organ, they become invasive into functioning tissue, and draw all the bloods resources for their growth. Thus causing the body to starve while the tumors thrives. we need to look more into gene therapy and RNAi technologies within all cell lines and animal models.

Are you sure you're studying biology? You don't seem to have much grasp of the basics as yet. I don't think you know enough to be admitted onto an undergrad course, unless they take students with no previous knowledge of biology at all.

I agree with the people above, It is really surgery. But did you know, we can prevent cancer? Me and family learned our lessons. My mom sister has a breast cancer it been a year now. As a woman, I need to prevent my self from cancer or any other diseases. Me, my mum and my younger sister kate, we took this supplement called [thieving quackery ] Multi-vitamins it is really helpful to us cause we know that it can prevent us from harmful diseases. Also, we run together we have the same diet. It works for us ladies. So far so good.

Sometimes, advertising supplements is a pretty harmless activity, and doesn't really call for much objection other than to think those that do it could be doing something a lot more useful with their existence.

But to peddle quackery and claim it can save lives??? No, that's shameful. You shouldn't be doing this. Look in the mirror, whoever you are, Shanecantrell, and then go and read some forums where cancer patients talk amongst themselves about what they are facing, and then feel the shame you should be feeling for peddling your quackery.

You are not being kind. Use your time alive to be better than this.

And watch out for that karma that might be about to descend on you....

Hey ShanecantrellThis is the very real effect of the kind of thing that you are promoting. I am not saying that anyone will always survive cancer, but taking multi-vitamins in hope of making you immune to it will only lead to disaster. Your quackery is despicable.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

Julie5 wrote:But it's always a bit galling when someone pronounces that cancer is a myth.

Would that it were....

(Plus, always a bit suspect when someone thinks everyone else is a dimwit except for themselves!!!!)

SO TRUEEEE you stole my words...What university are you in? And are you really studying bio?OK many people have cursed you for whatever you typedbut okay coming to the solutions for cancer. hmm does anyone have any possible solutions to cancer?before that what are the possible causes of cancer? hmm not causes how does the cell changeso this is what i thinkthere is a change in the gene structure and cell divides uncontrollably. this division is the result of a change in the cell receptors (the cell cant sense the presence of any other cells in its surrounding and starts acting as if it were alone and forms a lump)over here i have one question what about the telomeres length? if the cell keeps dividing wont they shorten and the end result would be the cell would die.I do understand that all of the cells are dividing but wouldnt they all start dieing too one by one as the telomeres would shorten?coming back to the changes in the cell. where else could the change be when i think about it i feel it can and should at many places but when i try to think about specific places i cant pin it down.there should be something related to cytoskeleton

From what I've read, it takes about 6-10 mutations to achieve malignant transformation of a cell into a cancer cell. Once that's done, the cell's away and growing into a tumour.

There's a variety of possible pro-malignant mutations, and apart from distinct familial cancers where the responsible mutuation is known and inheritable, it would seem that each person's original cancer cell can be achieved by a combination of mutuations, none of which is individually enough to cause transformation, but which in sum tip the cell into uncontrolled proliferation.

Given the vast number of cell divisions daily, it's almost suprising cancer isn't far more common than it is. Overall, the cell does a fantastic job in ensuring cell division runs smoothly.

Whether one could actually prevent non-familial cancers by any means other than living a healthy lifestyle is maybe hard to say. What is currently more essential in terms of decreasing cancer mortality of those who already have it is the ability for medicine to detect, as early as possible, any malignantly transformed cells, so they can be removed, usually surgically, as early as possible (or, better still, pre-malignant cells, such as can happen with cervical cancer thanks to screening).

This is why studying the biology of cancer cells is so essential, so that methods of early detection can be identified. Also, of course, trying to get the body's natural immune system to recognise and kill off cancer cells.

With some exceptions, most cancer isn't actually lethal until it metastasises, and the cancer cells get into the bloodstream and spread around the body. Diagnosing it before it does that is critical to whether or not you can survive cancer long term.

By and large, cancer is not symptomatic until it is beyond early stage, and very often has already started to metastasise. Even when the primary (original) tumour has been cut out, and there is no evidence of metastatic (secondary) tumours visible in the body by CT scans etc, metastatic cells can remain in the circulation of the blood/lymph, and lurk in tissues, ready to start growing into tumours when they receive appropriate stimulation to do so (just what that is, is, again, still somewhat mysterious - inflammation seems to be involved sometimes). This is why someone who is apparently cured of cancer can relapse - sometimes even years, or decades later.

You can't really say someone is cured of cancer until every one of the descendent cells of the original cancer cell has been killed off....

I think that the way to go would be to engineer our own immune system to seek and destroy the cancerous cells. Wonder if it would be the innate or the adaptive immune system that would need to be activated........ probably the adaptive immune system - but then it would have to be tailor made to each person's immune system? tailor made to the type of cancer and the type of cell that is cancerous. Still, to have the immune system distinguish Self from a Cancerous Self will be hard, as it is the same cell, only the cell cycle is not behaving itself. Though with the sticky proteins (integrins or cadherins?) in such a quantifiable amount. . . . . Mmmm.....Maybe something like a complement system where if a certain quantity of stickiness is achieved, the cell then is destroyed. Too bad we can't get the cancerous cell to go into the apoptosis pathway and save the body the expenditure of energy in destroying the cancer cells. Oops, I went off thinking again. . . .

Also, the immune system could then be on guard for any of those pesky lurking cancer cells that are hiding in the deep recesses of our body's tissues after the first wave of destruction.

Prevention of cancer is admirable, but I feel it might be a never ending battle in our environment. Between the drinking water, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and just the natural land beneath us, we have to be oh so careful just to live. Each time a cell divides in our body, we are primed for a mutation to occur.

Now on top of all my studying epigenetics (actually I am looking into regeneration of blastema cells into limbs, body parts, and, perhaps maybe one day, specific tissues), these two articles have me worried about more things: